"Then of course there is my solution... blow up all the roads going to wild places, starting with HWY 120. Stop all trail maintenance. Tear down all infrastructure. Quit building new trails. Let the wilderness go fallow. :) But that is only popular with folks like me and the likes of Edward Abbey."
Environmentalism or Conservationism or neither? Pick your position, I guess. Any area classified as Wilderness generally does not allow anything mechanical on the trails. And I hate horses worse."
+1 to your entire post, Nick, but especially the parts I copied. It puzzles me as to why this thread even got off the ground, as the subject was pretty well covered in Dave C's original thread. The main difference I can see is that Dave's thread was downright civil, whereas this one has turned decidedly nasty, which is why I have mostly avoided it up until now. But I can hold my tongue no longer. All the reasons why MB'ers should not be allowed in real wilderness areas have been well stated, by a number of folks with exptensive backcounty experience, so there is no need to repeat them. The tenor of the thread is another matter entirely. Greg has already rightly called out Alex for his rudeness, so I will move on to Erik Basil. Below are excerpts of two highly offensive posts that do, indeed, belong in CHAFF, at best:
"Here, he would find plenty of weak minds quick to drink the kool aid and other weak minds, quick to argue. The "cranky winter doldrums on the internet" haven't even fully settled in and you can already see where this thread lurched off to.
(To the weak-minded, note that I've referred to both sides of the simple issue in the same manner, but that I mean it less for your particular side. This refers to you if you took offense at being rightly noted as weak minded.)... For me, lightweight backpacking is appropriately discrete from trail access issues and best remains so for what I view as the best interests of a fine website, like this. This thread is CHAFF, at best."
Weak minds? Rightly noted? Most of the folks on both sides of the argument are at the very least your intellectual and experiential equals, and many are your superiors, judging from your posts, and theirs over a much longer period of time than you have been a member of BPL. What ever gave you the idea that you could set yourself up as the judge of the cognitive abilities of your peers in the forums in the first place? As for your comment about lightweight backpacking being totally unrelated to trail access issues, all I can say is that someone who is unable to connect those two dots would do well to examine his own cognitive deficiencies before loftily holding forth on the "weak mindedness" of others.
"In terms of impact per person, we hikers have more impact on the trail than a single bike, less than a single horse and less than a single motorcycle -- according to tread impact studies done specifically for this purpose. A similar study also concludes that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and both will be contested by kooks and loonies. The nature of impacts to tread are different among the user groups, and there are different populations of each in different places.
If one were to leap backward into the 1990's, it would be very de rigeur to claim soft-tired bicycles cause more trail impacts than hikers and horses, but it was incorrect then, too. Now, standing where we are in 2013, that argument is an old hack that merely illustrates either the proponents' affinity for mindlessly repeating whatever sounds good, a lack of understanding/experience with trail work, or both."
Again the disdain for your peers. Kooks and loonies? Mindlessly repeating? Lack of understanding of trail work? In the face of first person experience of MB damage to trails by Roger Caffin, Nick Gatel, myself, and doubtless many others who have not bothered to post it? You mention unnamed studies. References please, along with an accounting of the source of their funding. No matter, the "studies" will not trump what I have seen with my own two eyes. In any case, it is not what you say that I take issue with. That is legitimate fodder for debate. What I take issue with is your arogance and lack of respect for your peers. Get over yourself, Erik. There is other intelligent life on this planet.